may be properly displayed." But, in the case of this individual, it had been seen that repeated sentences had had no effect on his conduct. He had still the means of circulating his libels in his hands, which he had retained during the whole period of his confinement in Newgate. He could not give securities for his future good conduct. These were called for, not to punish him, but to protect the public peace; and they were now told by Mr. Lovell himself, that no two persons would come forward to answer for him. Under these circumstances, if he were called upon by the crown for his advice, he must of necessity state, that the court in the case of this individual had found that a lenient punishment had not the effect of imposing any salutary restraint on his conduct, and severity had been found necessary. Wishing, as he sincerely did, that the punishment of every one should be as lenient as possible, consistently with the public se thor. He was prosecuted, and had been punished. In the case of Mr. Lovell, his apology (if he made any) was not satis factory to the commissioners, and they had called upon the crown to proceed against him. He was then sentenced to twelve months imprisonment, and ordered again to give security for three years, himself in 500, and two others in 250l. each. The next libel for which he was punished, was one reflecting on the conduct of the troops employed in Piccadilly, at the time an hon. baronet was committed by that House to the Tower. Of the publication of this libel, it was said Mr. Lovell knew nothing till it had gone forth to the world. This, it was well known, could not in law remove from him that responsibility which attached to him as proprietor and publisher of a newspaper, which, while he was in confinement, was thus made the vehicle of calumny, from which he derived a profit. In the Michaelmas Term, 1812, Mr. Lovell was proceed-curity, there was a great difficulty in reed against for a paper on the subject of the treatment of prisoners of war in this country. A more mischievous and flagitious libel than this-one more likely to produce dangerous consequences to our fellow countrymen, then prisoners of war in France, could not be imagined. He was not there to justify the judgments passed on Mr. Lovell, those from whom they proceeded needed not vindication from him, as it was universally known, that justice tempered with mercy uniformly at-rily removed. tend their decisions; but he would say, Mr. Anthony Browne could not help such a libel could not lightly be passed saying, that the observations of the hon. over. For that he had been sentenced to and learned gentleman were such as would be imprisoned one year and a half, to pay have done him more credit delivered to a a fine of 500l. to the King, and to give tribunal, before passing of sentence, than security for his future good behaviour, in that House, in answer to an application himself in 1,000l. and two others in 5001. for mercy at the end of nearly four years each. With respect to the circumstances imprisonment. It was almost impossible of Mr. Lovell, he, on inquiry, had found not to suppose that the sentence in this he still possessed the property of the case must have appeared extravagantly Statesman. This was a profitable con- severe by the court who inflicted it. What cern (he spoke of newspapers gene- offence was there on earth for which a rally); and not only was Mr. Lovell able three years and a half lingering imprisonto conduct this paper while in prison, but ment was not a sufficient expiation? What he had set up a new weekly one, called human transgression was there which The Constitution.' Yet possessing these, could merit a severer treatment? A senhe stated himself unable to pay the fine. tence of death was mercy when compared He (the Attorney General) submitted, that with it. But what was the offence for where a person was unable to pay the fine which this severe punishment had been imposed upon him, and had remained in pri- awarded? It was one which unavoidably son beyond the period named in his sen- grew out of a free government. The tence, it might become the duty of the ad.freedom of discussion, without which no visers of the crown to say, "the time is now country could be free, made it frequently arrived when the clemency of the crown a difficult matter to avoid the commission § commending it to the crown, to give up those securities which the supreme court of judicature had considered indispensably necessary; and necessary from the cir cumstance of former punishments having failed to impose a proper restraint on this individual. These considerations threw difficulties in the way of giving that advice to the crown which the hon. gentleman wished to be given. He, for one, should be glad if they could be satisfacto of what was termed a libel. The laws on addition of punishment, which was never the subject of libel were of such a nature contemplated, as gaolers sometimes thought that they were frequently more honouredit meritorious to add every severity in their in the breach than the observance." But, power to the sentence of the law. He whatever might be the policy of the law, did not mean to say that this was the case the imprisoment in this case had already in the instance of the present petitioner, continued beyond even the long term of but he knew of such cases of hardship. the sentence; and the question now was, The hon. baronet mentioned the cases of whether a period should not at last be put Mr. Cobbett being at first put among the to the sufferings of this unfortunate man. felons in Newgate, and that of Mr. FinHe hoped that at some future period of nerty's treatment at the castle of Lincoln. the session, if a period were not put to his This place, from its comparative extent imprisonment, the subject would again be and advantage of situation, was fixed on brought before the House, and that his as one where the prisoner might naturally hon. friend would not relax in his efforts. expect to enjoy as great comforts as were compatible with his imprisonment; but what was intended as mercy to the prisoner, was, through the rigour of the gaoler and the interference of tyrannical magistrates, converted into a punishment infinitely beyond what was in the contemplation of the Judge at the time when the sentence was passed. To this fact he could speak from his acquaintance with that part of the country. He had no difficulty in saying, that endeavours were but too often used to render the situation of persons suffering for libel as uncomfortable as possible; and that too often there was a rigour extended beyond the law. He thought that government would do well to apportion a part of the immense resources they had at their disposal, to the erection of a prison, to which persons confined for libel might be sent, instead of being mingled with the common herd of vile and wretched malefactors. With respect to the petition now presented by his hon. friend, he should not attempt to injure its merits by any observations of his own, but should be satisfied with earnestly recommending it to the consideration of ministers. Sir Gilbert Heathcote said, the hon. gentleman opposite would do well to take this case under consideration, and recommend a compliance with the prayer of the petition. It was not usual for the House to interfere with the sentences of judicial tribunals, but it was authorised in doing so when there was an appearance of unnecessary rigour or injustice. This interference was not at present craved-a petition for mercy, on the plea of long and extraordinary suffering, was what called for attention, as no other means for the attainment of relief had proved effectual; and all that the House had to do was merely to give expression to their wishes, and these he thought should be in favour of the petitioner. Mr. Lovell's case was confessed to be a hard one; he might deserve the name of a turbulent man, but that was matter of opinion. He himself, he suspected, was considered by the gentlemen opposite rather a turbulent person; and so perhaps might all the gentlemen on his side of the House; but that was only matter of opinion with the other side. There was, however, too great a disposition with these gentlemen to consider all who differed in opinion with them of a turbulent cast; but the exercise of autho- | rity in suppression of political sentiments, or relating to any thing connected with the preservation of the rights of men, was not to be silently regarded. He could not but deprecate the way in which those who were held to be guilty of libels were punished. There were some species of punishments awarded to persons pronounced offenders in this particular, which certainly were worse than death. For in many cases, these persons, who were generally men of education, were treated as the worst of felons, and made companions of the most dissolute and reprobate criminals; nay, they were often made to suffer an Mr. Alderman Atkins observed, that the hon. baronet had made a mistake when he stated Mr. Cobbett to have been classed among the felons in Newgate. Mr. Cobbett had carried on the publication of his paper during the whole period of his confinement, and had shared in all the indulgences which were ever allowed to other persons in his situation. In the course of his duty as a magistrate, he had visited the room in which Mr. Lovell was confined; and he believed, from other particulars which had come within his knowledge, he could speak to the petitioner's situation. From all that he perceived or could learn regarding Mr. Lovell's affairs, he was convinced he was unable to pay wholly discredited, the petitioner was obviously entitled to merciful consideration. Mr. Bathurst thought the only consideration necessary to be attended to in the case of such a determined libeller as Mr. Lovell was, whether the time of his imprisonment since that prescribed by the sentence, was such as to be deemed sufficient to countervail the quantum of punishment intended by the fine. But the fine was the least consideration in this petitioner's case. If he could not find securities for his good behaviour, to remit the fine was useless; and what must be the character of a man in Mr. Lovell's situation in life, who could not find two persons to answer for his future conduct? the fine inflicted upon him. He was certainly not living in affluence, he had nothing but articles of common necessity about him, and his circumstances, he was persuaded, were those of a distressed person, which was not surprising at the end of four years confinement. From the conversation which he had had with Mr. Lovell, he was firmly of opinion that, were it in his (the petitioner's) power to raise the fine, he would readily lay it down to procure his liberation; and that being the case, he was of opinion that the sentence ought to be mitigated. He believed Mr. Lovell was not looked upon by those who knew him, as so dangerous a character as that he could not procure some sort of security for his good behaviour. Let his Majesty's government remit the fine, and content themselves with security to the extent of 2001., and it would, he had no doubt, be obtained. He had seen several letters in the possession of Mr. Lovell, in which the writers, highly to their honour, offered to raise the money requisite to pay his fine by subscription, on receiving an assurance that he would abstain from offences of a libellous nature in future. He was well assured that it was not in his power, except by a subscription of that sort, ever to regain his liberty. He should hope that this would induce his Majesty's government to mitigate the punishment by remitting the fine, when they considered too that he had already suffered an additional imprisonment of five or six months. Mr. Ponsonby observed, that all judicial characters concurred in the doctrine of the Bill of Rights, that excessive fines ought not to be inflicted. If reference were made to the court previous to the promulgation of its sentence, of the inabipromulgation of its sentence, of the inability of the party to meet a pecuniary mulct, the court were bound to forego that part of the sentence. It was generally agreed, that the present petitioner was suffering under the infliction of an excessive fine, which he was wholly unable to pay; he had already suffered five or six months beyond the expiration of a long imprisonment inflicted by the court. With respect to the sureties, there was nothing in which a court should be more particularly careful. If it inflicted a demand beyond the capability of the party, it became guilty of a positive hardship; and in the present case, both the fine and sureties were of that description, as far as the statements went; and if those were not Mr. Whitbread shortly replied. He believed Mr. Lovell could not pay the fine, and that if his imprisonment were continued much longer, it would be likely to terminate in his death. He again expressed an anxious hope that mercy would be extended to him. In moving that the Petition should lie on the table, it was his hope that there it would continue to lie, and that its prayer would be attended to. The Petition was ordered to lie on the table. PRINCE REGENT'S MESSAGE respecting LORD WALSINGHAM.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer presented the following Message from the Prince Regent : "GEORGE, P. R. "The Prince Regent, acting in the having taken into his serious consideration name and on the behalf of his Majesty, the ability, integrity, impartiality, and indefatigable industry with which the lord Walsingham has discharged the weighty and important duties of chairman of the committees of the House of Lords, and of the private committees of the same, for these twenty years last past, and regretbility from infirmity any longer to exeting the misfortune of his lordship's inarecommends to the House of Commons to cute the duties of that important office, enable him to grant to the lord Walsingham an annuity of two thousand pounds." Ordered to be taken into consideration to-morrow. COURT-MARTIAL ON COLONEL QUENTIN.] Mr. Tierney rose, and spoke as follows:-The House need not be informed, Sir, that yesterday a notice was given of a renewed discussion relative to the proceedings of the Court-martial on colonel Quentin, and the conduct of government towards the officers of the 10th regiment of light dragoons. I was not aware, at that time, that I was at all implicated by the paper to which the hon. colonel alluded; but when it was afterwards put into my hands, I found that my conduct had been called into question to the full as much as that of the hon. colonel. So far I differ from him upon this occasion, that I think the sooner that paper* is no *The following is a Copy of the Article in the Courier, above referred to: "With regard to the letter which had been transmitted to his Royal Highness in the first instance, he (colonel Palmer) begged to state, that it had been procured by colonel Quentin on false pretences, and delivered to the Prince Regent by him, as colonel Palmer had been informed by his Royal Highness himself. "He had become the prosecutor not only by order of the commander in chief, but of the Prince Regent himself. He had never so far committed himself, as he was aware, as to render it necessary. "In the same paper, Mr. Tierney is made to say, that colonel Quentin ap'plied to the officers at the mess, demanding, as he stated, by the authority of the Regent, that the letter should be delivered to him; but this demand was not 'complied with; and upon reference to the Regent, it was found that no such authority had been given to him. That 'on a subsequent audience, the Regent ' demanded this letter from colonel Palmer, and it was accordingly surrendered to his Royal Highness, through whom it found its way to the Horse Guards and colonel Quentin.' "And Mr. Tierney is also made to say, That colonel Robarts, for the gallantry and good conduct of the regiment under his auspices, while subject to the inspection of the duke of Wellington, had been raised to the rank of lieutenant-colonel, from his station of major.' "With reference to the latter paragraph, we have authority to state, that colonel Robarts was raised to the rank of lieutenant-colonel by the unsolicited favour of the Prince Regent, to whom, as colonel of the 10th Hussars, he presented himself immediately on his return from ticed the better; and for that purpose I beg leave to call the attention of the House to a subject on which, considering the part I have taken, it may naturally be supposed that my feelings are very much alive. It is a paper of which I do not mean to complain, in the harsh sense of the word. I know that all public men are liable to animadversion; and had it purported to be the opinion of the editor of The Courier, the journal in which it was published, I should not have troubled the House upon this occasion; but the document is given as from authority, and dation, that he should have that promothe Peninsula, and by whom a recommention given to him, as a mark of the sense which his Royal Highness entertained of the gallantry and conduct of that officer, was transmitted to the commander in chief the same day. "With reference to the other paragraphs, we have also authority to state, that his Royal Highness never informed colonel Palmer, whether the demand made by colonel Quentin, that the letter should he delivered to him, was or was not made under the authority of the Regent. "Further, that the same letter was not procured by colonel Quentin under false pretences, and delivered by him to the Regent: but that colonel Palmer, in the presence of colonel Quentin and general Bloomfield, being asked by the Regent, whether colonel Quentin was in possession of the letter itself, (the substance of which his Royal Highness had previously understood to have been communicated several days before by colonel Palmer to colonel Quentin,) stated the letter to be in his hands, and that he was desired to deliver it to his Royal Highness: that colonel Palmer did deliver it to his Royal Highness, who immediately read it aloud, together with the letter which is under the signature of colonel Robarts alone, and purports to be written by desire of the offi cers who signed the first, and which had the same morning reached the Regent: that colonel Quentin immediately demanded a court-martial, with relation to the imputations contained in both the letters; putting his demand, at the time, into the form of an official letter, which he presented to the Regent as his colonel; and that the Regent immediately, in the presence of the officers above named, enclosed the three documents in a cover, and transmitted them to the adjutant-ge, although I do not mean to state what that authority is, under the circumstances, I suppose there is not a gentleman present who does not feel certain that it is no ordinary authority. It gives a contradiction to a statement I felt it my duty to make to the House, of facts which I adduced in support of my argument, as to the hard situation in which the officers of the 10th Hussars were placed by the conduct of government. The passage to which I particularly advert, is the following:-" In the same paper, Mr. Tierney is made to say, that colonel Quentin applied to the officers at the mess, demanding, as he stated, by the authority of the Regent, that the let 'ter should be delivered to him; but this ' demand was not complied with; and ' upon reference to the Regent, it was found that no such authority had been 'given to him. That, on a subsequent audience, the Regent demanded this let⚫ter from colonel Palmer, and it was ac'cordingly surrendered to his Royal Highness, through whom it found its way to the Horse Guards and colonel Quen'tin.' And Mr. Tierney is also made to say, That colonel Robarts, for the gallantry and good conduct of the regiment ' under his auspices, while subject to the inspection of the duke of Wellington, had been raised to the rank of lieutenant'colonel, from his station of major."" Asto neral, to be laid before the commander in chief. "We have also authority to say, that the Prince Regent gave no orders respecting the nomination of colonel Palmer as prosecutor, nor in any shape interfering after he had transmitted the papers above-mentioned to the adjutant-general. That colonel Palmer requested his Royal Highness to make application to the duke of York to rescind the nominations in question; but that his Royal Highness declined, in any way, to take part in the transaction, otherwise than as the channel through which his lieutenant-colonel's ap. plication for a court-martial should regularly pass to the commander in chief; his Royal Highness conceiving that colonel Palmer, by communicating, in the first instance, the substance of the officers' letter to colonel Quentin, rendered a court-martial indispensable, either on the demand of the lieutenant-colonel, to whom dishonourable conduct was imputed, or on that of the colonel, who was bound to investigate such an imputation." (VOL. XXIX.) the latter words of the paragraph, I do not comprehend what is the difference between what I am represented as having said, and the subsequent statement given from autherity. If it be thought that I meant to deny the kindness of his Royal Highness towards the officer named, my relation, I was certainly misunderstood, because I expressly added, that nothing could make me forget the sentiments of gratitude that ought to be felt. It is asserted, from authority, that colonel Robarts was raised to the rank of lieutenant-colonel by the unsolicited favour of the Prince Regent, to whom, as colonel of the 10th Hussars, he presented himself immediately on his return from the Peninsula. The fact is, that there had been an action, in which colonel Robarts had distinguished himself; but, at the same time, I admit that it was an act of favour on the part of the Prince Regent: I never have, and never will deny it. It is only mentioned in this account from authority, to shew that I was endeavouring to detract from the kindness of his Royal Highness on this occasion, when, but for the favour of his Royal Highness, colonel Robarts would not have been promoted. The truth is, I have understood, from several military gentlemen, that where an officer has had the command of a regiment, and had so distinguished himself as to induce the commander of the forces to mention his name in the dispatches, it is the uniform practice to advance that officer one step in rank. But, whether this be or be not the rule, it makes no difference, since colonel Robarts had, until this affair, received many marks of the kindness and favour of the Prince Regent. As to the former part of the paragraph which I read, I am most anxious that the House should be made distinctly to understand, that I did not, at least wilfully, state any fact on the former night which was not borne out by the evidence. I know that, in making my statement, I trod on extremely delicate ground; but I trust the House will do me the justice to think that I did not bring forward as fact, that which I did not believe to be so, or without sufficient evidence, which, if called upon, I could adduce. The thing denied by me is, that this letter was, by the desire of the officers of the regiment, given to the Prince Regent. I re-affirm it: I maintain that the letter was not given by colonel Palmer to the Prince Regent at the desire of the officers. The direct con(2 H) |